Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The biggest question for affordable housing is whether zoning (or lack of zoning) allows the area to grow easily. This can be up or out (preferably up for a lot of reasons). This isn't really a progressive issue, but rather a nimby issue. The whole spectrum tends to fight upzones and density in house neighborhoods, which contributes to a lack of capacity.
But affordability goes way beyond that.
Some places require tons of parking by law, often exceeding actual demand for parking in a new building. Progressives and progressive cities are more likely to support freedom on that topic, and the right wing tends to be more social engineering.
Some progressives do counterproductive things for affordability. In Seattle we pile fees on new buildings, which builds a few new affordable units but significantly increases rental market rates citywide, a classic case of shooting your own foot. Some places have rent control, which (depending on the specifics) can mean less new housing, less maintenance, and very high initial rents. Some people throw their brains out the window on this stuff and can't think beyond the first move.
Making excuses... Just like when conservatives try to pin everything on taxes, people only hear what they want. Guess what, cities like Chicago aren't growing very quickly either. Guess which cities are the fastest growing? The southern ones like Texas. Why do people move there, overwhelmingly due to COL. SF just is terrible with zoning. Stop making excuses.
Supply and demand, not this, "because we are just so smart" nonsense.
Thats right, northern cold cities arent growing very quickly either even if COL is low.
Thats right, northern cold cities arent growing very quickly either even if COL is low.
So no one wants to live in NY? Keep making excuses. The places that people want to live in the northeast are all expensive.
Keep pretending like there is no problem. SF doesn't have zoning problems. Just ignore every educated opinion out there if you like. Be ignorant if you want.
The Bay Area is a classic case of NIMBYism causing a housing crisis with poor and middle class people being pushed out. All those hippies from the 60s and 70s fighting progress at the expense of the people they supposedly care about.
The Bay Area is a classic case of NIMBYism causing a housing crisis with poor and middle class people being pushed out. All those hippies from the 60s and 70s fighting progress at the expense of the people they supposedly care about.
Same here in NYC. These zoning laws were put in place in like 1960s and never revisited again... they are absolutely terrible from modern city planning stand point as well.
I don't think it's so much about zoning alone as it is a combination between zoning and municipal fragmentation.
Basically, consider an archetypal rural area in New England versus Maryland which is subject to development. In New England, the area is covered by a town government, which has been sovereign since the 18th century. The local voters set up a zoning code to preserve the areas rural character, including demanding all new development has ridiculously large lot sizes (possibly up to one acre minimums) as a result, population growth ends quickly, and people looking for a new house have to look at greenfield development in the next town over. In contrast, in Maryland the local residents had no direct zoning control, so if the County decides it wants to set up say a dense townhouse development there's absolutely nothing that the existing residents can do to stop it, presuming one of them agrees to sell to developers to begin with.
Well the biggest difference between SF and HOU metros is that one has cheap, flat, build able land stretching out in nearly every direction. SF bay region can sprawl in straight lines like HOU.
In many communities, zoning requires affordable housing to be built. If developers had their way, they wouldn't accommodate lower income consumers with good, prime land near employment/culture/transit amenities. Because they can make more by building luxury condos vs efficiency housing.
And I've been to Houston numerous times. Their lack of intelligent civic planning isn't exactly...impressive.
The Bay Area is a classic case of NIMBYism causing a housing crisis with poor and middle class people being pushed out. All those hippies from the 60s and 70s fighting progress at the expense of the people they supposedly care about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz
Same here in NYC. These zoning laws were put in place in like 1960s and never revisited again... they are absolutely terrible from modern city planning stand point as well.
I think people in the Bay area have a right to decide what kind of development they want in their communities. I would not be surprised if all these "zoning hurts poor people type arguments" are really just fronts for real estate developers wanting to make more money without restrictions.
Gantz, New York City has a population over 8 million people? How many more do want them to allow? 15 million, 25 million, 50 million? I think the City is already extremely overpopulated as it is without letting developers run roughshod over the City's neighborhoods carte blanche.
That's the sort of logic that's turned San Francisco into an insanely-priced city of haves and have-nots. It mostly boils down to a lack of supply.
I'll guess that SF has 300,000 market rate units including 200,000 that are rentals or brand new, so they basically reflect the current market. Add another 50,000 units and the city will be priced based on what 250,000 households can afford, not based on what 200,000 can afford. That would move market rates down. It could be done with less than 2% of the land in the city limits.
Of course the dynamic would be more stark with another 100,000 units, or 200,000, but that would sizeably change the city so it's not terribly realistic.
Supply & demand don't care about education. That is an excuse to get out of zoning regulations. Does oil & gas generate revenue or not? Clearly it has for a very long time. However Houston has not had the same problems. (Houston is on the coast too BTW) Economists have been pointing this out for quite some time.
SF is notorious for its zoning regulations. Not only SF but basically the entire bay area has the same issue. Places like Chicago and Baltimore don't have nearly the same rules.
I think these are clearly excuses to get out of the real issue. The zoning rules are doing exactly what they intend to do, restrict housing. That may be good for the residents, but bad for the larger population, bad for equality, bad for poorer people.
It is interesting that you bring up Baltimore. Baltimore is mostly pretty positive about building apartment buildings. The only exception was a fleeting idea that because one of Baltimore's few really prosperous quasi-suburban neighborhoods (Roland Park) opposed apartment buildings in a zoning rewrite, the whole city should be down-zoned. That idea seemed to die at some point... and a good thing too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
